"IPCC says..." Topic

FAQ 4.3 What kind of consumption has the
greatest environmental impact?

The relationship between consumer behaviours and their associated environmental impacts is well understood. Generally, higher consumption lifestyles have greater environmental impact, which connects distributive equity issues with the environment.

PDF link

So how is it that they
(1) Have no concept of their responsibility regarding their own "consumer behavior?"

(2) Justify their nonsense with inane excuses
link

and

(3) Insist they need "more clarity" on the issue before they can take action?

HOW LONG have they been at this? How much more clarity do they need? Really?

At a meeting in the UK in 2008, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, a climate scientist with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), strongly urged businesses to slash employee travel and to fill the void with video conferencing.
Speaking to members of the British Parliment (via video link, of course) at an event called "Is Your Journey Really Necessary?" Pachauri said that in some regions transport accounts for 40% of total emissions (though in the opaque world of greenhouse gas measurement this number is entirely debatable), and that civil aviation is a major contributor.

Video conferencing, he said, "would be of great benefit in reducing and controlling the growth of emissions from aviation." For you and me, I guess, but not the august members of the UN itself.

link

The Secretary of the IPCC introduced this matter and the work that is already under way to
reduce the carbon footprint of IPCC activities, including the successful use of electronic
documents at recent meetings. Delegates thanked the Secretariat for the efforts and work
gone into this topic. The use of electronic meetings or electronic connections to in-person
meetings, when possible, was encouraged. Some delegates welcomed the fact that
options in this regard were being looked into. However, it was also noted that holding IPCC
meetings around the world is important. When travel is necessary, carbon offsetting can
have a useful role to play, provided that a reputable scheme is identified for this purpose,
possibly in consultation with partner UN agencies. The Kyoto Protocol's Clean
Development Mechanism, through the voluntary cancellation in the CDM registry, was
mentioned as an example of an already existing reputable scheme, not only for offsetting
travel emissions but also for other carbon footprint reductions.
Other suggestions were put forward from delegates and it was decided that the work on this
issue should go on. It was agreed that the Secretariat would continue studying and
mapping out the options and alternative models to reduce the carbon footprint of IPCC
activities, taking into account the viewpoints expressed by Panel members, and that the
Panel would eventually decide how to move forward on this subject when there is more
clarity on the next steps.

PDF link

Now Martin will dismiss this question out of hand, most likely, with the excuse that he doesn't bother with repetitive questions.

I'd offer that it wouldn't be repetitive if any of the warmists would actually answer what is a legitimate group of questions.

Not conceding anything, but even if the contributing scientists are 100% correct, how can anyone with a straight face suggest that these folks with this nonsense of "do as I say not as I do" and "well, we've identified the problem decades ago, but lack the clarity to take any action ourselves" convince anyone of anything?

1) You've answered your own question with your quotes.
2) Are you implying that developing countries should not be allowed to host conferences and that they should take their directions from their Imperial Overl- how gauche of me, I mean developed countries? Could a better venue been taken from a strictly logistical point of view? yes. But since the conference was to get political in nature I fail to see how this discredits the science.

(3) Insist they need "more clarity" on the issue before they can take action?

a) You're trying to get it both ways here. Science is never absolutely settled, and scientists will work asymptotically to get to Truth, so regardless of the political process, scientists will continue to work on understanding Climate. However, many opportunists who benifit from the status quo, just like Big Tobacco and cancer, will try to raise unreasable doubts and demand extraordinary proof before being dislodged from the current economic system.

Actually, I have not.

There is nothing in my emails that explains why an organization that is "the source' of information on global warming, who identified behavior as a contributor to the problem continuing with behavior that not only extends the problem, it makes it worse.

There is nothing in my quotes that explains why said organization can't figure out on their own that doing such things like greater use of videoconferences instead of worldwide boondoggles is a good thing to do or why after all these decades they need more clarity to figure out they need to stop setting such a horrendous example – especially if they are going to be lecturing others. Hell, even the IPCC member in 2008 who addressed this observed that with the Un it is a case of "rules for thee but not for me" What a bunch of hypocrites!

Nothing in my quotes explains the nonsense of the IPCC excusing their record sized carbon footprint in Peru by claiming that if a certain 580 square miles of trees already there continued to exist for some number of decades then their carbon would be offset.

Excuse me? Are they suggesting those trees aren't ALREADY in use absorbing carbon? Do you buy their "scientific explanation?" If so, then going forward, there is no reason to do anything to mitigate or reduce carbon output. Simply claim a body of trees and claim them as YOUR carbon filter. Hey if the IPCC supports that as a legitimate approach, then we all can as well.

I fail to see how this discredits the science.

never said it did. Please re-read my closing to the post. It discredits the messengers, who are supposed to be convincing the world – yet they have for decades acted like they really don't have to do anything themselves, and they concoct ludicrous excuses for their bad behavior. It's like Mr Creosote lecturing us on caloric intake.

Science is never absolutely settled

No but it certainly seems to be both unwilling to look outside their box at differing results that conflict with their own – hardly an indication they are after "truth" and at some point, I submit it is a reasonable thing to do to say "enough already" and stop wasting money on diminishing returns for the sake of "truth" and spending it more wisely on other research needed to mitigate the effects we are seeing right now, as well as some steps that should be taken right now based on what we are seeing in the real world.

…many opportunists who benefit from the status quo,

and there is no profit or profiteering from the other side? No one taking advantage of subsidies, tax breaks, regulations, loans for their industries, consulting firms to support the AGW climate change industry? Pot, meet kettle.

I'm sure that the "580 square miles of trees" comment was in the context of the ongoing destruction of the S. American forests at an increasing rate. The IPCC wasn't claiming that the carbon footprint of their conference was covered by the existence of 580 miles of forest. But rather, the forests are needed to cover the carbon footprint of man, including, as for example "this conference". That is a small enough section of trees, after all, and sufficient to eliminate the environmental impact of the conference. But only if the trees don't get destroyed.

Perhaps it was a sort of devils advocate ploy?…

and there is no profit or profiteering from the other side? No one taking advantage of subsidies, tax breaks, regulations, loans for their industries, consulting firms to support the AGW climate change industry? Pot, meet kettle.

Not NEARLY as large as the combined total of subsides, tax breaks, and financing shoveled out (and by) Big Oil, Big Coal and Big Power…

Great War ace. That is exactly what the stated. I read what they wrote and the didn't frame it that way.

In any event, it was one more large, needless footprint, roughly 1.5 times bigger than the previous one, from the do as I say not as I do crowd that shows no inclination to give up the perks of the boondoggle.

Need more clarity? Really? After all of these decades? There isn't even any indication I could find in the report of them trying.

Just waiting for more clarity…

Coastal2:

Actual figures to support that claim? One will be bigger than the other pretty much by definition. The fact one is larger than the other does not justify either one.

I love 'carbon offsets' Essentially we can do anything we want, as long as we plant a few tress its okay. :)

Buying indulgences.

Hey, it worked for the folks in the past. I've seen no reports documented of anyone who bought an indulgence not being satisfied with its efficacy.

In their case, they aren't buying and planting new trees…somehow they seem to think there is some magic switch on the trees so THEY can use them for THEIR carbon, but before that, they were just sitting there idle. What's more, by their own projection, that stand of trees will take nearly 80 years to do so, even though the event will have been over for decades.

For others who back the scheme in general, planting trees in Argentina, for example, may have the ability theoretically to absorb the carbon from a new plant in Billings Montana, but it seems to me that the air in Billings is going to suck just the same due to the new construction. Never have completely figured it out.

Not going to discuss it here, but here's an analysis that leads to some serious head scratching based on some new rules
link

JJ

I fail to see how this discredits the science.

never said it did. Please re-read my closing to the post. It discredits the messengers, who are supposed to be convincing the world – yet they have for decades acted like they really don't have to do anything themselves, and they concoct ludicrous excuses for their bad behavior. It's like Mr Creosote lecturing us on caloric intake.

I agree with you. It certainly looks bad, reminiscent of Al Gore's monstrous home carbon footprint. And unfortunately it gives opponents ammunition in their arguments to discredit the science as a whole, which in reality it has nothing to do with.

So, aside from the fact that the organizers of this event are morons, and I think most here would agree on that, what does this have to do with climate change theory?

Coastal2:

Actual figures to support that claim? One will be bigger than the other pretty much by definition. The fact one is larger than the other does not justify either one.

I apologize for jumping into this discussion, but it is a question, the exact answer to which has kinda bugged me for a while, so I couold not resist. So, with my BFF Google I came up with a whole pile of links. I selected the following three which I felt were representative:

link

link

link

Basically, according the GSI site, in 2013 the fossil fuel industry received over half-a-trillion ($548,000,000,000), while the renewable energy industry got about one-hundred and twenty billion ($120,000,000,000) world wide.

Other sites indicated an even greater disparity.

So I rate coastal2's claim to be TRUE.

Now I don't know for sure, but certainly the fossil fuel industry gets a lot more help (almost five times as much), with which to push it's agenda than does the renewable fuel industry.

No but it certainly seems to be both unwilling to look outside their box at differing results that conflict with their own –

ACC was first proposed in the 1950s. Gas was like $.19 USD/gallon Everyone wanted to see the USA in their Chevrolet. The ACC theorists were thought to be quacks. And they certainly were not getting paid by the renewable energy industry, for obvious reasons. But over the years with the accumulation of more, and more accurate data, it began to get traction despite the hurdles. So current climate theory is the child of those early apostates' willingness to think outside of the box, and buck the establishment. And the only way the could do it was with very strong, carefully researched data and analysis.

Is it possible that some maverick researchers will arise and challenge the current accepted theory? Absolutely. But they are going too have to do it just like the early climate researchers, with very strong, carefully researched data and analysis, and not by simply trying to cast doubt on the existing science.

And despite the formidable backing power of the fossil fuel industry, no one has been able to do this yet.

Quit wasting money on more research to rep low the same field and use that money more wisely. I've listed a number of items before but two big ones off the top of my head are the equivalent of the Manhattan Project for alternate fuels, and mitigation steps and research for low lying places like New Orleans and a number of places on the east coast..

But for now, economies must function, man must live and there isn't replacement power available.

Can't talk politics but the particulars of a recent loudly presented change in the rules has some very curious content.

As for rating the coastal2 number as true, what is the dollar value of all the universities, organizations for the cause, all of the governments for the cause? Big petrol may be big $$$, but without a hard number for comparison, it's like looking at Lake Ontario, admitting that you've never seen the Atlantic Ocean, but since the lake sure looks really big, it must therefore be bigger than the ocean.

"So, aside from the fact that the organizers of this event are morons, and I think most here would agree on that, what does this have to do with climate change theory?"

Not a damn thing and never claimed otherwise.

It also isn't just the organizers, it is their parent organization, the IPCC, their parent organization, the UN, and everyone who chose to attend the boondoggle rather than insisting on presenting via videoconference.

As long as the UN and the IPCC continue with their "rules for thee but not for me, and oh by the way, give us money to redistribute" approach, it is a waste of time, money and the efforts of the scientists.

I apologize for jumping into this discussion, but it is a question, the exact answer to which has kinda bugged me for a while, so I could not resist. So, with my BFF Google I came up with a whole pile of links. I selected the following three which I felt were representative:

Please do jump in. Better than what I came up with.

@mandt2- You're fighting a hopeless cause, I'm afraid. You're using logic and definable facts. While your erstwhile opposition is not…

It also isn't just the organizers, it is their parent organization, the IPCC, their parent organization, the UN, and everyone who chose to attend the boondoggle rather than insisting on presenting via videoconference.

If you think that video conferencing is the be all/end all replacement for face to face conferences, then you've never been involved in either. To think you can replace the IPCC's meeting with 'super video conferencing' is just plain daft… (And do not quote your good Dr. on this; he may be a good researcher, but in this case, he's just plain naive…)

Since the establishment of the IPCC and their declaration of CO2 to be the threat that they claim, what specific steps have they taken to address their own?

"@mandt2- You're fighting a hopeless cause, I'm afraid. You're using logic and definable facts. While your erstwhile opposition is not…"

So the IPCC as a source doesn't constitute facts? Why not? Untrustworthy? History of unreliability? Misleading reports? What is your basis for that claim?

Are you claiming there is sufficient alternative energy sources to replace the existing fossil fuels? OK let's switch right now! Or was my fact actually true?

For what the IPCC does, where politicians write the reports, why can't they do any of it by some other means? Maybe it doesn't lend itself to complete replacement by videoconferencing, but is their nothing they can do? Why not? There is no indication they are doing anything to cut back. Shouldn't they be setting an example?

If they as certain as they claim, what is wrong with the logic that some of that money could be better spent actually doing something remedial, or on alternate research on remediation?

You can claim my facts are not true or my logic is flawed, but just like with mandt2's proclamations, it doesn't make it so.

Quit wasting money on more research to rep low the same field and use that money more wisely. I've listed a number of items before but two big ones off the top of my head are the equivalent of the Manhattan Project for alternate fuels, and mitigation steps and research for low lying places like New Orleans and a number of places on the east coast.

Isn't that kinda like saying, 'let's stop wasting money on more cancer research, and use the money more wisely i.e. for treatments that work'? Besides, science can only recommend solutions. It is up to the world governments to write and fund policies. Here in the U.S. that would be Congress.

And if I understand you correctly, I agree about the low-lying coastal areas, but isn't it better to go after the cause of a problem rather than each of the possible symptoms or consequences?

But for now, economies must function, man must live and there isn't replacement power available.

Absolutely. However,

link

and this,

Cutting carbon pollution has costs, but it also creates benefits by reducing the costs of climate damages. To accurately evaluate the economic impact of climate policies, a cost-benefit analysis is needed. There's approximately 95% agreement among economists that the benefits outweigh the costs and the USA should take steps to cut its carbon pollution. For the full article and source links, go here:

link

As for rating the coastal2 number as true, what is the dollar value of all the universities, organizations for the cause, all of the governments for the cause?

That's a valid hypothesis. If you will scroll down to the bottom of the first link, your will see a section labeled "Resources for identifying, measuring and assessing fossil-fuel subsidies."

On the second link, there is a link in the left side-bar, "Methodology."

And if you go to the third, Wiki link and scroll down to the references at the bottom there are quite a number of sources that discuss where the subsidies come from. Many in pdf format.

Now, if you don't feel your question is answered, then I suggest you do your own research, and see what you can dig up.

As long as the UN and the IPCC continue with their "rules for thee but not for me, and oh by the way, give us money to redistribute" approach, it is a waste of time, money and the efforts of the scientists.

Perhaps. I think, as you indicated, that there are benefits to get everyone into one location where they can have face-time. Every organization that I've worked for has had annual conferences and off-site meetings. I hated going to them, but I have to admit, they are worthwhile. You end up having impromptu conversations with people you wouldn't otherwise log into, and fresh ideas can come out if it.

Not a damn thing and never claimed otherwise.

Didn't say that you did. We agree. Whoever was running the event should have been skewered, and we should not let that cast doubt on the integrity work and conclusions of the attendees. Right?

The only wrinkle is that you seem to suggest the opposite here:

If they as certain as they claim, what is wrong with the logic that some of that money could be better spent actually doing something remedial, or on alternate research on remediation?

For what the IPCC does, where politicians write the reports, why can't they do any of it by some other means? Maybe it doesn't lend itself to complete replacement by videoconferencing, but is their nothing they can do? Why not? There is no indication they are doing anything to cut back.

That story does not address how the IPCC is administered and what steps they are or are not making to keep their business operations in keeping with the scientific conclusions of their many international members and member organizations. It doesn't mean that they are not doing anything.

BUT, in spirit, I agree with you. It looks bad, and they need to get their act together.